Peyton Manning is 9-11 all time in the playoffs and has been one and done 8 times. Joe Flacco is 7-4 in his fifth year in the league. This isn't to paint a picture between those two specific players, but with Tom Brady now passing Joe Montana as the leader in career playoff wins, I think it's time to revisit the debate in terms of where Peyton Manning stands among the all time greats. There are those who believe he is the greatest quarterback of all time and this recent stint probably doesn't change that perception. And even though the entire season isn't over, Manning's is. So I'm curious to what people here think regarding his spot with everyone else. Now I'm sure not everyone has seen the all time greats play game after game after game Sunday to Sunday, but if you have some idea then please voice your opinion.

For me, Manning's memorable moments are mostly bad ones. I still say he's one of the all time greats of course, but if we're talking maybe Mount Rushmore of quarterbacks or top five just within the Super Bowl era, I don't know if he goes on that list. It's really hard for me to put him there.

I blame Peyton for Raheem Moore's failure. Manning is 9-11 in the playoffs while Flacco is 7-4, therefore Flacco is a much better QB than Manning. The rest of the team makes no difference in the outcome of a game, only the QB matters.

Brady and Montana should be 1 and 2 (the order is debatable) and Manning should be 3rd (at most, 4th, if you really like Elway I think). Marino would definitely be my 5th, but I guess I might just not value rings as much as everyone else. I know Young is probably more deserving in most people's eyes, but I really think Marino was awesome.

Brady and Montana should be 1 and 2 (the order is debatable) and Manning should be 3rd (at most, 4th, if you really like Elway I think). Marino would definitely be my 5th, but I guess I might just not value rings as much as everyone else. I know Young is probably more deserving in most people's eyes, but I really think Marino was awesome.

I'm torn who I should rate higher, Marino or Favre. I think both of them are right there at 6 and 7 respectively.

A good number of those playoff losses were not his fault. He had some bogus defenses for a good amount of his time in Indy. The guy's had playoff games where his team got bounced despite him putting up a passer rating in the nineties...meanwhile, we've got some super bowl winners who crapped the bed and got carried to rings. I know it's fun to say LOL MANNING ONE AND DONE, but how can I hate on a guy when his team allows 38 points or whatever? Wins and losses are not individual stats. Using them as such is just plain ridiculous.

I still have him as the greatest QB in NFL history right now, but if Brady ends up being productive for two years after Manning stops, he'll probably get bumped down to #2.

It would be way too much work to go through the stats but it seems to me that perhaps Marino and Fouts need to in the same group as Manning. Manning has simply not performed well in the playoffs (even his SB win was not exactly a offense juggernaut) and at least Marino and Fouts could claim their defenses sucked most of their careers. Marino didn't even have an effective RB most of his career. No doubt, zero doubt that Montano and Brady are the top two. Bradshaw won 4 SB's but Jon Kitna could have done that with those Steeler teams, Bradshaw was a moron. BTW - imagine if Archie Manning was on the 70's Steelers teams.

End of the day, Manning cannot be in the top tier simply because he has choked in the playoffs too many times.

It would be way too much work to go through the stats but it seems to me that perhaps Marino and Fouts need to in the same group as Manning. Manning has simply not performed well in the playoffs (even his SB win was not exactly a offense juggernaut) and at least Marino and Fouts could claim their defenses sucked most of their careers. Marino didn't even have an effective RB most of his career. No doubt, zero doubt that Montano and Brady are the top two. Bradshaw won 4 SB's but Jon Kitna could have done that with those Steeler teams, Bradshaw was a moron. BTW - imagine if Archie Manning was on the 70's Steelers teams.

End of the day, Manning cannot be in the top tier simply because he has choked in the playoffs too many times.

Last year, we had one of those stupid Manning vs Brady threads that had the actual numbers done up all pretty like. Manning's career playoff passer rating and Brady's career playoff passer rating were pretty damned close.

You can't bash Manning for being a choker in the playoffs for what he did in 2000 against Miami and then call Brady clutch because of Super Bowl XXXVI and his ridiculous MVP win for it.

I think Peyton deserves to be on top of Young for sure. The rest is up for debate. How far back do we go? Does Otto Graham belong in there? It's tough to say.

For me it's:

Montana
Brady
Unitas
Elway
Peyton

Anyone that has played post merger. I suppose I would include Unitas who was around at the time of the merger, but was clearly at the end of his career. Otherwise I include Graham and maybe a few others.

Meh, I refuse rank a QB purely based on Super Bowls and playoff wins. Sure it must factored in but there are SO many other things that have to go right for you to be successful in the playoffs and to win rings.

I hate using hypotheticals but if Manning has Billichick and his defense does he win more Super Bowls than Brady? Does Brady have similar success with the Colts horrid defense?

It's hard to say but I can't be too harsh on Manning. He won a super bowl and has gotten his team to the playoffs almost every single year he's been in the league. The year the Colts don't have him they put up the worst record in the NFL.

A good number of those playoff losses were not his fault. He had some bogus defenses for a good amount of his time in Indy. The guy's had playoff games where his team got bounced despite him putting up a passer rating in the nineties...meanwhile, we've got some super bowl winners who crapped the bed and got carried to rings. I know it's fun to say LOL MANNING ONE AND DONE, but how can I hate on a guy when his team allows 38 points or whatever? Wins and losses are not individual stats. Using them as such is just plain ridiculous.

I still have him as the greatest QB in NFL history right now, but if Brady ends up being productive for two years after Manning stops, he'll probably get bumped down to #2.

True. Those are good points. It's difficult to find a common ground between the variables of teamwork and the all time great quarterbacks. But to me, if we're just talking best quarterbacks of all time...well I feel like if glorify just a certain player like a lot of people seem to do, then if they fail the burden also must fall on their shoulders.

Regarding Manning, I just can't remember that many times in the playoffs where he played so well all the way through the playoffs earning a Super Bowl. Even if we nitpick, his Super Bowl run in 2006 was not that impressive. I will say that in that year's AFC Championship game, he did shine against the Patriots and took control of his opportunity. That is the one game where he really lived up to expectations. The Bears were probably one of the worst Super Bowl teams in the last 20 years that season...maybe alongside the 1994 Chargers or something. The Colts probably win that game 7/10 times. I'm sure people will point to this thrashing of the Broncos in 2003 and 2004 along with the Chiefs, but other than those games...well, I mean he's lost to some opponents that the Colts essentially had no business of losing to. For whatever reason, the offenses under his guidance just collapsed. That 1999 Divisional game against the Titans I remember in detail. Or that game against the Steelers in 2005. Both at home. Or getting stomped 41-0 to the New York Jets in 2002. Obviously not all the losses are blamed on just his shoulders, but there are some quarterbacks that just rise to the occasion and dominate despite whatever circumstances there are. 4x NFL MVP and in the running for 5x, but a lackluster resume in the postseason it seems. Just comes off as weird to me.

Meh, I refuse rank a QB purely based on Super Bowls and playoff wins. Sure it must factored in but there are SO many other things that have to go right for you to be successful in the playoffs and to win rings.

I hate using hypotheticals but if Manning has Billichick and his defense does he win more Super Bowls than Brady? Does Brady have similar success with the Colts horrid defense?

It's hard to say but I can't be too harsh on Manning. He won a super bowl and has gotten his team to the playoffs almost every single year he's been in the league. The year the Colts don't have him they put up the worst record in the NFL.

True. The Colts had some mediocre to bad defenses in the 2000's, but they also had some decent ones. I mean, enough for Manning and company to dominate as they usually did.

As far as the switch up, I honestly don't know. Maybe Brady still does get those three rings. Maybe he doesn't get one. A lot of the playoff exits I remember regarding Manning is that he either didn't make enough big plays like he did most of the time in the regular season and/or he threw an interception, held on to the ball and got sacked, etc. I'm sure in a lot of those games there might have been protection problems, receivers just didn't get open, whatever. Regardless, it's been a continuing theme for over a decade. He had another chance against New Orleans a few years ago, but for instance, that pick six was bad, but not necessarily his fault.

It's just weird, because you don't hear excuses being made for Jim Kelly or Warren Moon's playoff blunders.

I think it's an insult to Tom Brady to even be compared to Peyton Manning.

Peyton never has been a clutch or pressure QB. It's the one weakness in his game and it's huge. He's never been that guy despite all his gifts who's been able to elevate inconsistent play by his teammates around him and pull out a win.

Peyton is a superstar because of his record breaking stats, I just wouldn't want him to be my QB if my team was in the playoffs.

He out Marino'd Marino by actually getting a ring out of those defense-optional teams his mediocre GM built around him. I think Peyton's a top 5 all time QB with Unitas, Montana, Brady and Elway, in no particular order.

__________________
BK

Quote:

Originally Posted by AcheTen

JPP is a better and more productive player than Brandon Graham

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon41_80

Is Shaun Hill a top 10 QB? Definitely not. Is he a top 20 one? Almost certainly.

I don't like even looking at playoff records. Look at how many Super Bowl wins they have, how many Super Bowl appearances they have, maybe even conference championship game appearances, but don't look at playoff record.

You're going to get a playoff loss every you don't win the Super Bowl. Manning's 11 playoff losses means that he's been to the playoffs 12 times. That's a very good thing. A 9-11 record can be much better than say 5-3 (Jake Delhomme), even though the win percentage is a lot lower.

Plus Manning has lead his teams to a playoff bye several times. He could have a couple more wins had he gotten to beat up on wildcard teams in the opening round. But instead he lead his team to a good enough record in the regular season that they got to advance to the divisional round automatically.

It would be way too much work to go through the stats but it seems to me that perhaps Marino and Fouts need to in the same group as Manning. Manning has simply not performed well in the playoffs (even his SB win was not exactly a offense juggernaut) and at least Marino and Fouts could claim their defenses sucked most of their careers. Marino didn't even have an effective RB most of his career. No doubt, zero doubt that Montano and Brady are the top two. Bradshaw won 4 SB's but Jon Kitna could have done that with those Steeler teams, Bradshaw was a moron. BTW - imagine if Archie Manning was on the 70's Steelers teams.

End of the day, Manning cannot be in the top tier simply because he has choked in the playoffs too many times.

THe one season Bradshaw didn't play the Steelers didn't win the SB.
Bradshaw was one of the great players on those Steelers teams, not some bum along for the ride.

When the Steelers played an equal juggernaut from the 1970s in the Dallas Cowboys, it was obvious that Bradshaw was among the best players on those Steelers SB teams. It sucks the way people bash Bradshaw's career and pretend the Steelers were winning all their games by shutouts.